There is a very serious flaw in your reasoning. It's a No True Scotsman fallacy, in a breathtakingly broad version.

"This really isn't Women's Issues, this is something else," effectively sets it up so no issue an individual woman has qualifies for inclusion in the set of "Women's Issues". It drains everything out of the term except as a way to pay hollow lip service to the idea that there are possibly issues out there that are a problem for women. But this particular issue? Oh, no, that's not part of this.

The set of things that are "Women's Issues" is the set of similar problems which many individual women have. What else could it possibly be composed of?

Comment on
Re^7: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?